Throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries, Socialism had a fairly precise definition, a somewhat clear program, and a generally agreed upon goal. The definition of Socialism was some variant of Karl Marx's well known statement, "From each according to the ability to each according to their need." Socialism's program was the nationalization of all means of production, exchange, and distribution. Socialism's goal was the use of all three in a comprehensive plan to bring about some chimera of social justice.
There were two general schools or roads socialists followed to utopia, Marxism and Fabianism. Both were variants of Socialism. They differed mainly in their stated ultimate ideal of a Socialist State and how to get there.
The Marxists said they believed that in a fully Socialist State—the State itself would wither away, and all that would be left was a classless society basking in the sunshine of social justice for all. The method advocated by the Communists to achieve this social nirvana was a revolutionary change leading to a dictatorship of the working class (proletariat) which ruthlessly exterminated the old society and built the new.
The Fabians saw their road to social justice leading through a highly centralized government built up gradually by democratic means that slowly gained control of the levers of power and gradually implemented its program of bureaucratic control until complete social justice was achieved.
In Europe, these schools of thought were explicit and open, forming political parties and vying for power, either through the ballot or from the barrel of a gun. In America, the engrained belief in personal liberty, individual freedom, and economic opportunity were too strong to allow the open development of any party that openly claimed Socialism as their philosophy. Therefore, the gradualist approach of the Fabians became the incremental approach of the Progressives.
Starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson massively redirecting society under FDR and moving ever forward under every president except Ronald Reagan, the Progressives have slowly built the web upon which America now is bound.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and of its satellite empire communism finally lost its great patron. It had long since lost its allure in the reality of a brutal dictatorship that ground its people into the dirt in the race to social justice. So in the West Socialism has gone underground in the Green Movement, the vast network of community organizing groups, and in the Democrat Party. Many of the leaders of the Party now openly call themselves Progressives. All of them champion the idea of a Living Constitution that is evolving from the old American ideal of individualism toward a new collectivist ideal of social justice.
As long as the ideas and goals of Socialism were just that: ideas and goals, it all sounded good, and many intellectuals, as well as many members of the general public, bought into the lofty sounding fairness of social justice. However, once the Socialists gained actual power in the USSR, and later in its satellite empire, the crushing reality of its brutish methods and the soul-killing dullness of its execution dimmed the glow. It changed its image from a rising sun of opportunity into the glare of an interrogation lamp.
This is where the insidious and dangerous character of the new underground Socialists in the plethora of underground manifestations reveals itself. Today, we don't have a socialist state in America; instead, we have a welfare state. Unlike Socialism, the welfare State has no precise definition. The attempt to understand all its implications is like trying to take a picture of fog: it obscures the picture, however it cannot be seen as anything solid. The leaders of this homegrown style of Socialism--Progressivism--have learned that, by incrementally increasing the level of governmental control over private industry and individuals, they can still achieve the Socialist goal of income redistribution without the stigma of advocating an admittedly authoritarian dictatorship.
All they have to do is speak in vague terms of the general good and spreading the wealth around, and the low information citizens nurtured in state schools will stand in line to proudly vote for hope and change. Never realizing that the prosperity Paul thinks he is voting out of Peter's pocket will not reach him as it is syphoned off to feed an ever growing bureaucracy needed to transfer the wealth.
As long as the danger to liberty came from self-declared Socialists who were openly pursuing collectivist goals and as long as there was the glaring disconnect of a brutal dictatorship saying it was oppressing its own people in the quest for social justice it was easy to argue that the tenets of Socialism were false. There were examples to show that it would not achieve its goals, that its execution was brutish, and that it would inevitably produce results which most Socialists themselves would find abhorrent.
The situation is different when we face the Welfare State. It has no definite form and is instead a conglomeration of diverse and sometimes even contradictory elements. Some of these elements may seem to make a free society more attractive, such as something for everyone, while others, such as the means to take from one to give to another, are incompatible with freedom.
I am not in any way advocating for no government. I am advocating for limited government. There are many things which most will agree are beneficial to society and which are legitimate concerns for government, such as defense, the mail system, taxes appropriate to a limited role, and the judiciary. Most people today would also agree that some form of a safety net is possible in a free society to protect against risks common to all.
However, here it is important to differentiate between two views of this type of protection. There is limited protection, which can be achieved for all, and absolute security, which can never be achieved.
The first of these types of protection is against severe poverty: the assurance of a minimum level of support for everyone. The second is the guarantee of a certain standard of life which is determined by comparing the standard enjoyed by one group against that enjoyed by another. In other words the difference is between the protection of an equal minimum income for all and the protection of a particular income for particular groups. This is the goal of the Welfare State that brings us back to "From each according to their ability to each according to their need," or, as our current Progressive President puts it, "Spreading the Wealth Around."
To accomplish this, the coercive power of the State is used to ensure that particular people get particular things which in turn require discrimination between people and unequal treatment. Some are forced to give while others receive. This is incompatible with a free society. Thus the welfare State which aims at social justice inevitably leads back to Socialism with its coercive power and arbitrary methods. In addition though some of the aims of the Welfare State, such as income equality, can only be achieved through the use of methods which are incompatible with freedom all of the aims may be pursued in that fashion.
The primary danger is that once the aims of the Welfare State have been accepted as legitimate, it is then tacitly assumed that the use of means which are contrary to freedom are acceptable. The ends justify the means and the rule of law is sacrificed in the name of social justice.
Ultimately, we arrive at a place where the criticism of the generally accepted goals of the Welfare State leads automatically to negative labels. If you point out that Obamacare is socialized medicine, you are throwing grandma over the cliff. If you point out that common core is indoctrination, you are against education. If you point out that progressive taxation is inherently discriminatory and unfair, you are the friend of millionaires and billionaires and the enemy of the poor. If you point out that government regulations are strangling businesses, you are against clean air and consumer safety.
Our Progressive leaders always point to the shining city on a hill where everyone has everything. Our low-information fellow citizens never seem to realize that a government which ceases to administer limited resources put under its control for a specific purpose will instead use its coercive power to ensure that people are given what some bureaucrat decides they need. They never connect the dots. They do not understand that when larger and larger segments of the population come to depend on the government for everything, eventually it will be the decision of those in authority what anyone receives. This isn't freedom. This isn't what America was or what it is supposed to be. And this is why the Welfare State isn't well and it isn't fair.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.